I think Typesafe Certifiction is better than Typesafe Training

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Xuefeng Wu <benewu@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I noticed that typesafe provide some scala training to promote scala and improve scala developer.
In my option that the typesafe should produce certifications and scala level standards
and learn map  to guide who want to develop their scala knowledge,technology but do not know how.

If the scala certification could prov the people could programing or design in scala, I think the enterprise would be feel safer and confident to hire and develop system in scala.

Language certifications have always been a turn off for me and I'd hate to see scala go down that path. Certifications have a very corporate an institutional appeal which some dull companies may seek, but I feel a better path to promote scala and improve your scala programming skills is to start contributing to the open source community and actually making scala matter. Here is a good place to start is here -> https://github.com/languages/scala  A certification in your briefcase is much less valuable than a pouring passion into a library that makes others lives better over time.

Yes language certification is useless for hackers, but it may help some people who do not know how to do and just want to seek a job.
And some software company do not invest on technology but just want to build a system to meet the business requirement.

A certification may could help them.

The source code is for hackers , communication is for pioneer and certification for followers.

That's all fine until the market is tight and openings are with companies which honor certificates. Of course, that probably still isn't a good enough reason to take a job at such a company. Hmm.

I guess the best use for certificates is they alert you to who not to hire (those with certificates) and where not to work (where they want certificates). Unfortunately India is certificate crazy, so they are a bit less helpful here. Still, even in India I've seen the red flag go up when developers interview a candidate who flashes those certificates.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Xuefeng Wu <benewu@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes language certification is useless for hackers, but it may help some people who do not know how to do and just want to seek a job.
And some software company do not invest on technology but just want to build a system to meet the business requirement.

A certification may could help them.

The source code is for hackers , communication is for pioneer and certification for followers.

Certification could provide level standards and learning map reference for people who do not know how to learn and how to measure before they work.
 I think the certification is not suit for most of people in this communicate group but there are(will be?) more and more people who would programing in scala but do not here this group.

Some times that the question is more useful than answer for learner.
The question can lead the learner to learn, do exercise and archive.

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Meh to certification. 
Cardboard !== Code

On 15 September 2011 11:18, Xuefeng Wu <benewu@gmail.com> wrote:

Some times that the question is more useful than answer for learner.
The question can lead the learner to learn, do exercise and archive.

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates.Ken 

Am 15.09.2011 23:06, schrieb Ken McDonald:

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates. Ken

as someone who has never been to a university, i agree :)
you need smart people who just like to code and learn. it doesn't matter where their skills come from, they just need to be there.

Yeh, its like if you don't bother to get a certification test, you are not worth it? Think of all the great guitarists in the history, who didn't get any real training on it..self-learning is the way they went, and got their names in history books. There is no certificate for creativity and innovation and there is no substitute for them. I couldnt agree more with Doug on contributing to the project like scala if you really wanna show somebody that you know about it. Write some open source program and share it with everybody instead of cramming up a bunch of thing for some test to get a "certificate"..  

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM, HamsterofDeath <h-star@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 15.09.2011 23:06, schrieb Ken McDonald:

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates. Ken

as someone who has never been to a university, i agree :)
you need smart people who just like to code and learn. it doesn't matter where their skills come from, they just need to be there.

The only benefit I ever had to a course with a certification was the same as a course with a grade:  I had a bit more motivation to learn the material.
Once I became highly self-motivated, I had no need for 'grades' to learn material I was interested in.  However, my company still required my grades to continue funding grad school :)
Think of certification as a level of ensuring that sending someone to an expensive training course really did pay off.  Yes, it means the company does not trust you.  However, it was a great boon for me when I was still young in my career, new to the company and wanted to make heavy use of educational benefits.   This proved to them I was using their $ wisely before that had seen my developer potential come to fruition.   I'm not sure they would have given me those opportunities without my proving to them it was useful, either via grades or my work.   Having been fresh out of school, i didn't have enough project tasks to prove to them with anything other than grades at the time.
So, while I agree with the sentiment that higher based solely on certifications is silly, I think they may serve other purposes.  They are a minor indication that you went to a class and passed some minimum bar of understanding.  I know all the certifications I received helped me learn things.  MySQL for example taught me a *lot* about simple databases before I had more formal training.  However, if you assume that a MySQL certifcation made me a DB administrator, you'd be sorely mistaken.  It *did* mean that I knew more about MySQL than I had before...
In any case, just wanted to offer a devil's advocate view.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, amulya rattan <talk2amulya@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeh, its like if you don't bother to get a certification test, you are not worth it? Think of all the great guitarists in the history, who didn't get any real training on it..self-learning is the way they went, and got their names in history books. There is no certificate for creativity and innovation and there is no substitute for them. I couldnt agree more with Doug on contributing to the project like scala if you really wanna show somebody that you know about it. Write some open source program and share it with everybody instead of cramming up a bunch of thing for some test to get a "certificate"..  

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM, HamsterofDeath <h-star@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 15.09.2011 23:06, schrieb Ken McDonald:

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates. Ken

as someone who has never been to a university, i agree :)
you need smart people who just like to code and learn. it doesn't matter where their skills come from, they just need to be there.

Anecdotal observations: the programmers I interview who have Java certification are far worse programmers than those without it. The only good programmer I know who has it, only took it so that he could quantify its difficulty for prospective candidates applying for jobs with the qualification. This person now leaves qualification off CV due to ashamed-ness.
Possible reason: there is a clear conflict of interest between company X, who wants to boast about how many qualified developers there are in language Y and which offers a certification for a price P in said language. Especially when programmer Z says "hey, I just gave you $P, now gimme the certification I just paid for"
Please scala/EPFL/typesafe - do *not* provide certification.
Chris

From: joshua.suereth@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:57:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [scala-user] I think Typesafe Certifiction is better than Typesafe Training
To: talk2amulya@gmail.com
CC: h-star@gmx.de; scala-user@googlegroups.com

The only benefit I ever had to a course with a certification was the same as a course with a grade:  I had a bit more motivation to learn the material.
Once I became highly self-motivated, I had no need for 'grades' to learn material I was interested in.  However, my company still required my grades to continue funding grad school :)
Think of certification as a level of ensuring that sending someone to an expensive training course really did pay off.  Yes, it means the company does not trust you.  However, it was a great boon for me when I was still young in my career, new to the company and wanted to make heavy use of educational benefits.   This proved to them I was using their $ wisely before that had seen my developer potential come to fruition.   I'm not sure they would have given me those opportunities without my proving to them it was useful, either via grades or my work.   Having been fresh out of school, i didn't have enough project tasks to prove to them with anything other than grades at the time.
So, while I agree with the sentiment that higher based solely on certifications is silly, I think they may serve other purposes.  They are a minor indication that you went to a class and passed some minimum bar of understanding.  I know all the certifications I received helped me learn things.  MySQL for example taught me a *lot* about simple databases before I had more formal training.  However, if you assume that a MySQL certifcation made me a DB administrator, you'd be sorely mistaken.  It *did* mean that I knew more about MySQL than I had before...
In any case, just wanted to offer a devil's advocate view.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, amulya rattan <talk2amulya@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeh, its like if you don't bother to get a certification test, you are not worth it? Think of all the great guitarists in the history, who didn't get any real training on it..self-learning is the way they went, and got their names in history books. There is no certificate for creativity and innovation and there is no substitute for them. I couldnt agree more with Doug on contributing to the project like scala if you really wanna show somebody that you know about it. Write some open source program and share it with everybody instead of cramming up a bunch of thing for some test to get a "certificate"..  

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM, HamsterofDeath <h-star@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 15.09.2011 23:06, schrieb Ken McDonald:

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates. Ken

as someone who has never been to a university, i agree :)
you need smart people who just like to code and learn. it doesn't matter where their skills come from, they just need to be there.

Certification is only useful if there's a high failure rate. Where the
certification is critical to the safety of others you will see this.
For example - the UK driving test or med. school exams (a lot of
bright students do re-sits). Otherwise, the course provider is also
the examiner, the pressure is on the course provider to pass people
(most UK degrees)

Tim

On 16 September 2011 10:06, Chris Marshall wrote:
> Anecdotal observations: the programmers I interview who have Java
> certification are far worse programmers than those without it. The only good
> programmer I know who has it, only took it so that he could quantify its
> difficulty for prospective candidates applying for jobs with the
> qualification. This person now leaves qualification off CV due to
> ashamed-ness.
> Possible reason: there is a clear conflict of interest between company X,
> who wants to boast about how many qualified developers there are in language
> Y and which offers a certification for a price P in said language.
> Especially when programmer Z says "hey, I just gave you $P, now gimme the
> certification I just paid for"
> Please scala/EPFL/typesafe - do *not* provide certification.
> Chris
>
> ________________________________
> From: joshua.suereth@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:57:40 -0400
> Subject: Re: [scala-user] I think Typesafe Certifiction is better than
> Typesafe Training
> To: talk2amulya@gmail.com
> CC: h-star@gmx.de; scala-user@googlegroups.com
>
> The only benefit I ever had to a course with a certification was the same as
> a course with a grade:  I had a bit more motivation to learn the material.
> Once I became highly self-motivated, I had no need for 'grades' to learn
> material I was interested in.  However, my company still required my grades
> to continue funding grad school :)
> Think of certification as a level of ensuring that sending someone to an
> expensive training course really did pay off.  Yes, it means the company
> does not trust you.  However, it was a great boon for me when I was still
> young in my career, new to the company and wanted to make heavy use of
> educational benefits.   This proved to them I was using their $ wisely
> before that had seen my developer potential come to fruition.   I'm not sure
> they would have given me those opportunities without my proving to them it
> was useful, either via grades or my work.   Having been fresh out of school,
> i didn't have enough project tasks to prove to them with anything other than
> grades at the time.
> So, while I agree with the sentiment that higher based solely on
> certifications is silly, I think they may serve other purposes.  They are a
> minor indication that you went to a class and passed some minimum bar of
> understanding.  I know all the certifications I received helped me learn
> things.  MySQL for example taught me a *lot* about simple databases before I
> had more formal training.  However, if you assume that a MySQL certifcation
> made me a DB administrator, you'd be sorely mistaken.  It *did* mean that I
> knew more about MySQL than I had before...
> In any case, just wanted to offer a devil's advocate view.
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, amulya rattan
> wrote:
>
> Yeh, its like if you don't bother to get a certification test, you are not
> worth it? Think of all the great guitarists in the history, who didn't get
> any real training on it..self-learning is the way they went, and got their
> names in history books. There is no certificate for creativity and
> innovation and there is no substitute for them. I couldnt agree more with
> Doug on contributing to the project like scala if you really wanna show
> somebody that you know about it. Write some open source program and share it
> with everybody instead of cramming up a bunch of thing for some test to get
> a "certificate"..
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM, HamsterofDeath wrote:
>
> Am 15.09.2011 23:06, schrieb Ken McDonald:
>
> Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about
> scala and do not how to learn.
>
> Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to
> hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own,
> especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active
> online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not
> in my company.
> I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering
> practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are
> even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher
> degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
> -10 on certificates.
> Ken
>
> as someone who has never been to a university, i agree :)
> you need smart people who just like to code and learn. it doesn't matter
> where their skills come from, they just need to be there.
>
>
>
>

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Chris Marshall <oxbow_lakes@hotmail.com> wrote:

Anecdotal observations: the programmers I interview who have Java certification are far worse programmers than those without it. The only good programmer I know who has it, only took it so that he could quantify its difficulty for prospective candidates applying for jobs with the qualification. This person now leaves qualification off CV due to ashamed-ness.

It's not only Java... I've seen and played the Microsoft developer certification game and it's absurd. It's so easy to get certified (test question brain dumps all over the internet), that it's actually useless.  Still, my favorite are the "pay us a lot to attend a two-day course, and we'll give give you a certificate" fraud schemes. Any certified Scrum masters on this list? :-D
The world doesn't need more ways for unskilled people to appear skilled.
Best,Hristo

On Friday, 16 September 2011 01:57:40 UTC+2, Josh Suereth wrote:

The only benefit I ever had to a course with a certification was the same as a course with a grade:  I had a bit more motivation to learn the material.
Once I became highly self-motivated, I had no need for 'grades' to learn material I was interested in.  However, my company still required my grades to continue funding grad school :)
Think of certification as a level of ensuring that sending someone to an expensive training course really did pay off.  Yes, it means the company does not trust you.  However, it was a great boon for me when I was still young in my career, new to the company and wanted to make heavy use of educational benefits.   This proved to them I was using their $ wisely before that had seen my developer potential come to fruition.   I'm not sure they would have given me those opportunities without my proving to them it was useful, either via grades or my work.   Having been fresh out of school, i didn't have enough project tasks to prove to them with anything other than grades at the time.

+1 for this. I did Java 1.4 (and Oracle 8) certification when I was a bit lost in my career and when I was a bit behind the times. I did it to prove to myself that I could do it and to help me prove to potential employers that I could do it.
Certification is training like any other. I don't think that people should hire solely based on certification. I don't think that people should not interview based upon lack of certification. I think motivation is a lot more important than certification, so I always ask *WHY* people done this training. 

So, while I agree with the sentiment that higher based solely on certifications is silly, I think they may serve other purposes.  They are a minor indication that you went to a class and passed some minimum bar of understanding.  I know all the certifications I received helped me learn things.  MySQL for example taught me a *lot* about simple databases before I had more formal training.  However, if you assume that a MySQL certifcation made me a DB administrator, you'd be sorely mistaken.  It *did* mean that I knew more about MySQL than I had before...

The Oracle certification I did included Oracle Forms. Which I had not touched before I did the exam, nor have I touched since. However, I passed the exam. I would definitely agree with Josh that it doesn't make you competant.

In any case, just wanted to offer a devil's advocate view.

Certification, like any other training, has to be looked at as part of a candidates other experience. You can't make a decision based upon it, either way. But just dismissing it out of hand isn't a good idea either.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, amulya rattan <talk2...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeh, its like if you don't bother to get a certification test, you are not worth it? Think of all the great guitarists in the history, who didn't get any real training on it..self-learning is the way they went, and got their names in history books. There is no certificate for creativity and innovation and there is no substitute for them. I couldnt agree more with Doug on contributing to the project like scala if you really wanna show somebody that you know about it. Write some open source program and share it with everybody instead of cramming up a bunch of thing for some test to get a "certificate"..  

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM, HamsterofDeath <h-s...@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 15.09.2011 23:06, schrieb Ken McDonald:

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates. Ken

as someone who has never been to a university, i agree :)
you need smart people who just like to code and learn. it doesn't matter where their skills come from, they just need to be there.

This seems to be implying that people who do certification do it because they can't learn any other way? Certification is *TRAINING* with an exam at the end. Are you arguing against training? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.
Btw, I'm not saying it is *GOOD* training, but it is training nevertheless. But you have to ask why the candidate did the training, like any other training.
Matthew.

On Thursday, 15 September 2011 23:06:10 UTC+2, Ken McDonald wrote:

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates.Ken 

On 15/09/2011 04:57, William la Forge wrote:
> I guess the best use for certificates is they alert you to who not to hire (those with
> certificates) and where not to work (where they want certificates). Unfortunately India is
> certificate crazy, so they are a bit less helpful here. Still, even in India I've seen the
> red flag go up when developers interview a candidate who flashes those certificates.

That's a bit harsh for those with certificates. You can't blame them for trying to be more
competitive on the job market. Particularly in a country where certificates are highly
demanded...

In France, I have yet to see a job requesting only people with certificates. Nobody never
asked one to me. Now, perhaps they are more asked for in some industry fields which I
haven't went (finances, perhaps?).
Employers prefer to rely on interview, and at worst (best?), they give a little coding
test to eliminate those bluffing, lying, exaggerating or overestimating their level...
Personally, even if I have quite some years of experience, I don't mind to do such tests:
I won't be offended by such request.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Josh Suereth wrote:
> Think of certification as a level of ensuring that sending someone to an
> expensive training course really did pay off.

My first job out of uni was with a large software consultancy that is
now part of Computer Associates. They highly valued certification,
because they could charge their customers more to hire certified
consultants. The certification courses I went on were largely a waste
of time, but there is a segment of the industry that values these
things. My experience is that it's people who are unable to qualify
programmers through other means (e.g. the don't work in the industry).
I bet a number of people on list only have registered/certified
tradesmen fix their hot water/gas/car/whatever. Same reason. However I
don't think Scala has the level of adoption where certification would
add any value.

N.

On 16/09/2011 12:44, Matthew Farwell wrote:
> Certification, like any other training, has to be looked at as part of a candidates other
> experience. You can't make a decision based upon it, either way. But just dismissing it
> out of hand isn't a good idea either.

+1

Note that I can (and do) write programs in Scala, but I don't see myself productive yet.
Supposing there are job offers asking for Scala qualification in France, I would perhaps
apply, but I would be honest about my level. Partly because I just don't like to bluff,
partly because if you don't prove yourself up to the task within 3 or 4 months, you can be
fired immediately. But it is a loss of time for both parties, so it is better to avoid this.
But well, there are people that can pretend to be expert in Scala, while having my level
or lower. I understand employers wanting to filter out these, by asking for certificates
(but we saw they can be as fake as the resume...), by making tests, and sometime by
phoning to the former employer (but it isn't always reliable, in both kinds of opinions...
depending on the relations you had when leaving).

I have one case for Java certification where the developer was damn good, one that I look up to.  Maybe that's the exception to the rule.
I agree about certifications having high failure rate.  Like the lawyer bar exam, or entering med school.  That gives it a certain credibility.   However, if it's just a means for an employer to make sure employees learned the material, I still think that's helpful.   Not every company is small enough that the VPs making decisions about training budget know individuals and whether or not to send them to coursework. They have to deal in 'policy'.   It's an abstraction over people and It can be insulting, but I haven't seen it done in other ways in large companies.
Even Google made Gosling and Guido go through "readability" reviews for Java and Python respectively (to ensure they knew and could program in the language). 
Once you're at a certain size, and can't know everyone individually, you deal in policy.
I'm not saying I endorse companies that hire *solely* on certifcations.   I'm only saying that if it's a way to let companies send developers to training and be assured that the money is wisely spent, then it's not a bad thing on the whole.   The more people who learn Scala the better.
- Josh

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Chris Marshall <oxbow_lakes@hotmail.com> wrote:

Anecdotal observations: the programmers I interview who have Java certification are far worse programmers than those without it. The only good programmer I know who has it, only took it so that he could quantify its difficulty for prospective candidates applying for jobs with the qualification. This person now leaves qualification off CV due to ashamed-ness.
Possible reason: there is a clear conflict of interest between company X, who wants to boast about how many qualified developers there are in language Y and which offers a certification for a price P in said language. Especially when programmer Z says "hey, I just gave you $P, now gimme the certification I just paid for"
Please scala/EPFL/typesafe - do *not* provide certification.
Chris

From: joshua.suereth@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:57:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [scala-user] I think Typesafe Certifiction is better than Typesafe Training
To: talk2amulya@gmail.com
CC: h-star@gmx.de; scala-user@googlegroups.com

The only benefit I ever had to a course with a certification was the same as a course with a grade:  I had a bit more motivation to learn the material.
Once I became highly self-motivated, I had no need for 'grades' to learn material I was interested in.  However, my company still required my grades to continue funding grad school :)
Think of certification as a level of ensuring that sending someone to an expensive training course really did pay off.  Yes, it means the company does not trust you.  However, it was a great boon for me when I was still young in my career, new to the company and wanted to make heavy use of educational benefits.   This proved to them I was using their $ wisely before that had seen my developer potential come to fruition.   I'm not sure they would have given me those opportunities without my proving to them it was useful, either via grades or my work.   Having been fresh out of school, i didn't have enough project tasks to prove to them with anything other than grades at the time.
So, while I agree with the sentiment that higher based solely on certifications is silly, I think they may serve other purposes.  They are a minor indication that you went to a class and passed some minimum bar of understanding.  I know all the certifications I received helped me learn things.  MySQL for example taught me a *lot* about simple databases before I had more formal training.  However, if you assume that a MySQL certifcation made me a DB administrator, you'd be sorely mistaken.  It *did* mean that I knew more about MySQL than I had before...
In any case, just wanted to offer a devil's advocate view.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, amulya rattan <talk2amulya@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeh, its like if you don't bother to get a certification test, you are not worth it? Think of all the great guitarists in the history, who didn't get any real training on it..self-learning is the way they went, and got their names in history books. There is no certificate for creativity and innovation and there is no substitute for them. I couldnt agree more with Doug on contributing to the project like scala if you really wanna show somebody that you know about it. Write some open source program and share it with everybody instead of cramming up a bunch of thing for some test to get a "certificate"..  

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM, HamsterofDeath <h-star@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 15.09.2011 23:06, schrieb Ken McDonald:

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates. Ken

as someone who has never been to a university, i agree :)
you need smart people who just like to code and learn. it doesn't matter where their skills come from, they just need to be there.

If my grandmother were to hire a programmer, her only resort would be to screen candidates based on their certifications.
Recently I had to hire a mason, I was fortunate enough to "know people who knew", so I had better means to screen and my brick walls are now in good shape.
While I find it understandable for my grandmother to have no better means of screening programmers, the only reasons I can see for
a company to resorts to this practice are :
1)  it has no expertise in the field
2)  the management doesn't have sufficient trust in the technical staff that does interviews
3)  the cert is a test, not of talent, but of willingness to put an effort to go through something useless simply because it is demanded,
so it's really a test of the capacity to obey "no matter what"

For my taste, these companies are to be avoided, except in some cases of (1).

OTOH, I do agree with Xuefeng that certs are for followers, and the reality is that scala cannot grow it's user base(to mainstream language size
unless it gains the ability to attract followers, so certifications can probably have a positive impact for this reason.

ML

2011/9/16 Josh Suereth <joshua.suereth@gmail.com>

I have one case for Java certification where the developer was damn good, one that I look up to.  Maybe that's the exception to the rule.
I agree about certifications having high failure rate.  Like the lawyer bar exam, or entering med school.  That gives it a certain credibility.   However, if it's just a means for an employer to make sure employees learned the material, I still think that's helpful.   Not every company is small enough that the VPs making decisions about training budget know individuals and whether or not to send them to coursework. They have to deal in 'policy'.   It's an abstraction over people and It can be insulting, but I haven't seen it done in other ways in large companies.
Even Google made Gosling and Guido go through "readability" reviews for Java and Python respectively (to ensure they knew and could program in the language). 
Once you're at a certain size, and can't know everyone individually, you deal in policy.
I'm not saying I endorse companies that hire *solely* on certifcations.   I'm only saying that if it's a way to let companies send developers to training and be assured that the money is wisely spent, then it's not a bad thing on the whole.   The more people who learn Scala the better.
- Josh

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Chris Marshall <oxbow_lakes@hotmail.com> wrote:

Anecdotal observations: the programmers I interview who have Java certification are far worse programmers than those without it. The only good programmer I know who has it, only took it so that he could quantify its difficulty for prospective candidates applying for jobs with the qualification. This person now leaves qualification off CV due to ashamed-ness.
Possible reason: there is a clear conflict of interest between company X, who wants to boast about how many qualified developers there are in language Y and which offers a certification for a price P in said language. Especially when programmer Z says "hey, I just gave you $P, now gimme the certification I just paid for"
Please scala/EPFL/typesafe - do *not* provide certification.
Chris

From: joshua.suereth@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:57:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [scala-user] I think Typesafe Certifiction is better than Typesafe Training
To: talk2amulya@gmail.com
CC: h-star@gmx.de; scala-user@googlegroups.com

The only benefit I ever had to a course with a certification was the same as a course with a grade:  I had a bit more motivation to learn the material.
Once I became highly self-motivated, I had no need for 'grades' to learn material I was interested in.  However, my company still required my grades to continue funding grad school :)
Think of certification as a level of ensuring that sending someone to an expensive training course really did pay off.  Yes, it means the company does not trust you.  However, it was a great boon for me when I was still young in my career, new to the company and wanted to make heavy use of educational benefits.   This proved to them I was using their $ wisely before that had seen my developer potential come to fruition.   I'm not sure they would have given me those opportunities without my proving to them it was useful, either via grades or my work.   Having been fresh out of school, i didn't have enough project tasks to prove to them with anything other than grades at the time.
So, while I agree with the sentiment that higher based solely on certifications is silly, I think they may serve other purposes.  They are a minor indication that you went to a class and passed some minimum bar of understanding.  I know all the certifications I received helped me learn things.  MySQL for example taught me a *lot* about simple databases before I had more formal training.  However, if you assume that a MySQL certifcation made me a DB administrator, you'd be sorely mistaken.  It *did* mean that I knew more about MySQL than I had before...
In any case, just wanted to offer a devil's advocate view.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, amulya rattan <talk2amulya@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeh, its like if you don't bother to get a certification test, you are not worth it? Think of all the great guitarists in the history, who didn't get any real training on it..self-learning is the way they went, and got their names in history books. There is no certificate for creativity and innovation and there is no substitute for them. I couldnt agree more with Doug on contributing to the project like scala if you really wanna show somebody that you know about it. Write some open source program and share it with everybody instead of cramming up a bunch of thing for some test to get a "certificate"..  

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM, HamsterofDeath <h-star@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 15.09.2011 23:06, schrieb Ken McDonald:

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates. Ken

as someone who has never been to a university, i agree :)
you need smart people who just like to code and learn. it doesn't matter where their skills come from, they just need to be there.

I wouldn't trust a mason because he shows me a certificate, nor would I trust a programmer. Most likely, if I couldn't got by word-of-mouth, I'd ask for some references and examples of past work I could see. Preferably stuff that has weathered well for several years.
We're lucky to be in an industry where proof of your skills is a by-product of employing them. It's hard to imagine the hoards of programmers out there who have years of experience, but nothing to show for it but a certificate.
And no one starts fresh with no experience. Masons apprentice for years. Programmers get 3-4 years to take on challenging projects at school and show off their skills.
Education and a certificate are very different. While you get a piece of paper at the end of both, with a certificate that is all you have to show for it. You get no experience you can draw upon and no by-products showing off your mastery of the skill (other than being able to cram).

2011/9/16 Maxime Lévesque <maxime.levesque@gmail.com>

If my grandmother were to hire a programmer, her only resort would be to screen candidates based on their certifications.
Recently I had to hire a mason, I was fortunate enough to "know people who knew", so I had better means to screen and my brick walls are now in good shape.
While I find it understandable for my grandmother to have no better means of screening programmers, the only reasons I can see for
a company to resorts to this practice are :
1)  it has no expertise in the field
2)  the management doesn't have sufficient trust in the technical staff that does interviews
3)  the cert is a test, not of talent, but of willingness to put an effort to go through something useless simply because it is demanded,
so it's really a test of the capacity to obey "no matter what"

For my taste, these companies are to be avoided, except in some cases of (1).

OTOH, I do agree with Xuefeng that certs are for followers, and the reality is that scala cannot grow it's user base(to mainstream language size
unless it gains the ability to attract followers, so certifications can probably have a positive impact for this reason.

ML

2011/9/16 Josh Suereth <joshua.suereth@gmail.com>

I have one case for Java certification where the developer was damn good, one that I look up to.  Maybe that's the exception to the rule.
I agree about certifications having high failure rate.  Like the lawyer bar exam, or entering med school.  That gives it a certain credibility.   However, if it's just a means for an employer to make sure employees learned the material, I still think that's helpful.   Not every company is small enough that the VPs making decisions about training budget know individuals and whether or not to send them to coursework. They have to deal in 'policy'.   It's an abstraction over people and It can be insulting, but I haven't seen it done in other ways in large companies.
Even Google made Gosling and Guido go through "readability" reviews for Java and Python respectively (to ensure they knew and could program in the language). 
Once you're at a certain size, and can't know everyone individually, you deal in policy.
I'm not saying I endorse companies that hire *solely* on certifcations.   I'm only saying that if it's a way to let companies send developers to training and be assured that the money is wisely spent, then it's not a bad thing on the whole.   The more people who learn Scala the better.
- Josh

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Chris Marshall <oxbow_lakes@hotmail.com> wrote:

Anecdotal observations: the programmers I interview who have Java certification are far worse programmers than those without it. The only good programmer I know who has it, only took it so that he could quantify its difficulty for prospective candidates applying for jobs with the qualification. This person now leaves qualification off CV due to ashamed-ness.
Possible reason: there is a clear conflict of interest between company X, who wants to boast about how many qualified developers there are in language Y and which offers a certification for a price P in said language. Especially when programmer Z says "hey, I just gave you $P, now gimme the certification I just paid for"
Please scala/EPFL/typesafe - do *not* provide certification.
Chris

From: joshua.suereth@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:57:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [scala-user] I think Typesafe Certifiction is better than Typesafe Training
To: talk2amulya@gmail.com
CC: h-star@gmx.de; scala-user@googlegroups.com

The only benefit I ever had to a course with a certification was the same as a course with a grade:  I had a bit more motivation to learn the material.
Once I became highly self-motivated, I had no need for 'grades' to learn material I was interested in.  However, my company still required my grades to continue funding grad school :)
Think of certification as a level of ensuring that sending someone to an expensive training course really did pay off.  Yes, it means the company does not trust you.  However, it was a great boon for me when I was still young in my career, new to the company and wanted to make heavy use of educational benefits.   This proved to them I was using their $ wisely before that had seen my developer potential come to fruition.   I'm not sure they would have given me those opportunities without my proving to them it was useful, either via grades or my work.   Having been fresh out of school, i didn't have enough project tasks to prove to them with anything other than grades at the time.
So, while I agree with the sentiment that higher based solely on certifications is silly, I think they may serve other purposes.  They are a minor indication that you went to a class and passed some minimum bar of understanding.  I know all the certifications I received helped me learn things.  MySQL for example taught me a *lot* about simple databases before I had more formal training.  However, if you assume that a MySQL certifcation made me a DB administrator, you'd be sorely mistaken.  It *did* mean that I knew more about MySQL than I had before...
In any case, just wanted to offer a devil's advocate view.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM, amulya rattan <talk2amulya@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeh, its like if you don't bother to get a certification test, you are not worth it? Think of all the great guitarists in the history, who didn't get any real training on it..self-learning is the way they went, and got their names in history books. There is no certificate for creativity and innovation and there is no substitute for them. I couldnt agree more with Doug on contributing to the project like scala if you really wanna show somebody that you know about it. Write some open source program and share it with everybody instead of cramming up a bunch of thing for some test to get a "certificate"..  

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM, HamsterofDeath <h-star@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 15.09.2011 23:06, schrieb Ken McDonald:

Before develop in scala, it might many people can not ask questions about scala and do not how to learn.

Yeah, well, that's why certs are a red flag to any company who knows how to hire. If a person can't pick up another programming language on their own, especially one like Scala that is pretty well documented and has an active online community, is that person worth hiring? Not in a million years, not in my company.
I have _never_ seen a good company--one that employs good engineering practices, and is a pleasant place to work--ask for certs. Some of them are even willing to consider developers without a university or other higher degree, if that person can demonstrate their competence.
-10 on certificates. Ken

as someone who has never been to a university, i agree :)
you need smart people who just like to code and learn. it doesn't matter where their skills come from, they just need to be there.

On Friday, September 16, 2011 5:51:47 AM UTC-5, Matthew Farwell wrote:

This seems to be implying that people who do certification do it because they can't learn any other way?

There's a big component of this in the system. 

Certification is *TRAINING* with an exam at the end. Are you arguing against training? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.

I'm against bad or ineffective training--which describes all certs I've seen.

Btw, I'm not saying it is *GOOD* training, but it is training nevertheless. But you have to ask why the candidate did the training, like any other training.

If they took *BAD* training, that's a mark against them. Which is sort of the whole point of this discussion. 

Hi Phillipe, 

Note that I can (and do) write programs in Scala, but I don't see myself productive yet.

Having seen some of your answers, I find that hard to believe :-)
Ken